THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.

Trump
to federal judges: Even a ‘bad high school student’ would rule in my
favor. Trump Says Travel Ban ‘Done For The Security Of Our Nation’

US
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the law enforcement at the
Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) Winter Conference in Washington,
U.S., February 8, 2017.

US President Donald Trump sought to lend
his own legal argument for his executive order banning travel from
certain Muslim-majority countries on Wednesday, discounting a legal
challenge to the order as anti-security.

Contending that a US
President has wide powers to control who comes into the country, Trump
said that even a “bad high school student” would rule in his favour, CNN
reported.

“This isn’t just me. This is for Obama, for Ronald
Reagan, for the President. This was done, very importantly, for
security,” Trump said.

“It was done for the security of our
nation, for the security of our citizens, so people don’t come in who
are going to do us harm. That is why is was done. It couldn’t have been
written more precisely,” he said.

Trump said his executive order was “written beautifully” and fully within the bounds of US statute.

“We’re
in an area that, let’s just say, they’re interpreting things
differently than probably 100 per cent of people in this room,” Trump
told a group of major city police officers and sheriffs in Washington.

“We want security,” Trump said.

On
Tuesday evening, a federal appeals court heard arguments in the legal
battle over the travel ban. The California-based Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals will decide soon whether to reinstate the executive order.

The
top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which
voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the
travel ban.

The state attorneys general from these states argued
that they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states,
including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

President
Donald Trump is asserting that he had the right to enact his travel
ban, saying it was “done for the security of our nation.”

Speaking
to the Washington, D.C. conference of the Major Cities Chiefs
Association, which represents sheriffs and heads of large police forces
around the country, the president said the order was written
“beautifully” and was within his executive authority.

“A bad high
school student would understand this,” he said of the ban. “It’s as
plain as you can have it and I was a good student. I understand things, I
comprehend things very well.”

Trump said one of the reasons he was elected president was “because of law and order and security.”

“I
think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today and it will
be at risk until such time as we are entitled and get what we are
entitled to,” he said.

Trump also read parts of his order aloud,
saying it allows the chief executive the ability to suspend the “entry
of all aliens or of any class of aliens” into the country, CBS News
reported.

“You can suspend, you can put restrictions, you can do
whatever you want,” he said. “You’re the chiefs, you’re the sheriffs,
you understand this.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is
weighing the appeal of Trump’s executive order on immigration, including
a temporary travel ban on those from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The
appeals court challenged the administration’s claim that the ban was
motivated by terrorism fears, but it also questioned an attorney’s
argument that it unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.

While awaiting a decision, Trump said “courts seem to be so political.”

“They
are interpreting things differently than probably 100 percent of people
in this room,” the president said. “I never want to call a court
biased, so I won’t call it biased.”

He added “it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

Earlier
Wednesday morning, the president tweeted: “If the U.S. does not win
this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and
safety to which we are entitled. Politics!”
_____________________________________________________

Democrats Get Trumped By Law

Published on Feb 8, 2017

While
politicians and pundits on the left continue to claim President Trump
acted illegally with the travel ban, President Trump reads the law
proving them wrong.

Trump read language from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
which clearly grants the President express powers to control the entry
of non-citizens into the United States on virtually any basis, but
specifically as a duty to protect the citizens from potentially
dangerous groups of foreigners.

“Now we’re in an area that… they are interpreting things differently
than probably 100% of the people in this room,” began Trump, referring
to the judges involved in blocking his orders. “This was done for the
security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that people who
come in who aren’t going to do us harm – and that’s why it was done.”“It couldn’t have been written anymore precisely… A bad high school student could understand this,” continuedHe proceeded to read from the U.S. Code on “Inadmissible Aliens” –(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever
the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of
aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of
the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he
shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of
aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens
any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.“I watched
last night in amazement, and I heard things that I couldn’t believe,
things that really had nothing to do with what I just read,” said the
President, referring to the presumably convoluted arguments of lawyers
and judges in deliberation.

“I don’t ever want to call a
court biased… but courts seem to be so political,” he continued. “It
would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a
statement and do what’s right – and that has to do with the security of
our country, which is so important.”“Right now, we are at risk because of what happened.”

If
the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never
have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!

President
Trump went to on make clear why the executive order went into place so
suddenly, saying that he had proposed a notice period of either one
month or one week – which his advisors shot down.
He distilled their explanation: “‘You
can’t give a notice. If you give a notice that we’re going to be really
tough one month from now, or in one week from now – then people are
going to pour in before the… restrictions,’” to which the crowd of law enforcement and security specialists applauded.
He
circled back to the previous night’s hearings: “I want to tell you – I
listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was
disgraceful.”

A recent poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily shows that a majority of Americans (51%) support Trump’s executive order.
Additionally, a poll
of nearly 10,000 Europeans from around the continent revealed that over
55% want immigration from Muslim-dominated countries halted completely.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“Trudeau Sets Up ‘War Room’ To Monitor Trump,” by David Krayden, Daily Caller, February 6, 2017:

President Donald Trump has so unnerved Justin Trudeau
that the Canadian prime minister has set-up a “war room” within his
office to monitor what Liberal government insiders are calling “the
unpredictable U.S. president” and to respond at a moment’s notice.
The team is led by long-time Liberal advisor Brian Clow, formerly
chief of staff to foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland, and is
designed to provide advice and quick responses to Trump’s trade policy,
especially with regard to NAFTA.
Greg MacEachern, a senior vice-president at Environics Communications and former Liberal staffer told The Hill Times,
“There’s not been a unit like this set up within the PMO to the best of
my knowledge,” said MacEachern. “Obviously, the prime minister wants to
be keeping a very close eye on this. … It’s an unprecedented situation
in the U.S. we’re watching.”
MacEarchern says Trudeau is continuing his “campaign” to impress
American decision-makers with experienced foreign policy and trade
negotiators who can relate to their American counterparts while trying
to keep all departments coordinate their activities and messages with
the government’s overall trade objectives….

It was reported
Friday that “a trio of House Democrats say President Trump is making a
mistake pushing for counter-extremism efforts to focus only on radical
Islam….Friday’s letter was signed Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson
(Md.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and John Conyers (Mich.).”Thompson, Engel and Conyers wrote: “Such a move is wrongheaded
insofar as persons who commit acts of violent extremism are inspired by
diverse political, religious and philosophical beliefs, and are not
limited to any single population or region.”In reality, there have been over 30,000 murderous jihad terror
attacks worldwide since 9/11. What other political, religious and
philosophical beliefs have been responsible for any comparable number? A
widely publicized study purporting to show that “right-wing extremists”
have killed more people in the U.S. than Islamic jihadis, and thus pose
a greater threat, has been debunked on many grounds.These representatives also wrote: “Changing the name to ‘Countering
Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism’ would have
damaging effects to our national security by feeding into the propaganda
created by terrorist groups and child domestic and international
diplomatic relations. Additionally, it could further alienate and create
distrust with the Muslim-American communities when the program depends
on close cooperation with law enforcement.”
Islamic jihadis routinely cite the texts and teachings of Islam to
justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. The idea
that Muslims who reject jihad terror will be enraged if the U.S.
government takes note of this is absurd. If they reject jihad terror,
they won’t embrace it because officials are saying things they don’t
like; in fact, if they really reject it, they should welcome and
cooperate with efforts to identify its causes and eradicate them. These
Congressmen are recommending that we curtail our speech to avoid
criticizing Islam, which is a Sharia blasphemy provision that the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to foist upon
the U.S. by means of “hate speech” laws for years. That the statements
of Thompson, Engel and Conyers are simply today’s conventional wisdom is
one indication of how successful these efforts have been.
Critics of President Trump’s plan have complained: “The program,
‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering
Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the
sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white
supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the
United States.”
Indeed, but the white supremacist threat has been wildly exaggerated by Soros-funded groups
(which exaggerations have been pushed by Soros-funded media) that
downplay and deny the jihad threat. Reuters’ equivalence here also
ignores the fact that the jihad is an international movement set on
destroying the U.S. and found on every continent; white supremacism is
not.
What Trump is really doing here is reversing Obama’s bow to Muslim
Brotherhood-linked groups in scrubbing counter-terror training materials
of all mention of Islam and jihad. On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera
of Muslim Advocates delivered a letter to John Brennan, who was then the
assistant to the president on National Security for Homeland Security
and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed by the leaders of virtually
all significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),
the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American
Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic
Relief USA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government
agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials
about Muslims and Islam.” Khera complained specifically about me, noting
that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training
academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a slide
presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit
recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; that in July 2010 I
“presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic
jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater,
Virginia”; and that I also “presented a similar lecture to the U.S.
Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the
FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”
These were supposed to be terrible materials because I was supposedly
bigoted and hateful. However, many of the examples Khera adduced of
“bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were simply
accurate. The only distortion was Khera’s representation of them.
For instance, Khera stated:

A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals
who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming “Homegrown Islamic
Extremists,” if they exhibit any of the following behavior:
“Wearing traditional Muslim attire”
“Growing facial hair”
“Frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group”
“Travel to a Muslim country”
“Increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause”

The FBI intelligence report Khera purported to be describing didn’t
actually say that. Rather, it included these behaviors among a list of
fourteen indicators that could “identify an individual going through the
radicalization process.” Other indicators included:

“Travel without obvious source of funds”
“Suspicious purchases of bomb making paraphernalia or weapons”
“Large transfer of funds, from or to overseas”
“Formation of operational cells”

Khera had selectively quoted the list to give the impression that the
FBI was teaching that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in
every case to “extremism.”
Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were
complaining, the Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task
force, among other actions:

“Purge all federal government training materials of biased materials.”
“Implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army
officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been
subjected to biased training.”

They wished to ensure that all law enforcement officials ever learn
about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn
— and Brennan was amenable to that. He took Khera’s complaints as his
marching orders.
In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was
written on White House stationery, Brennan accepted Khera’s criticisms
without a murmur of protest and assured her of his readiness to comply.
He detailed specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all
training materials that contain cultural or religious content,
including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality, this
material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything
that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive. Honest, accurate
discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify
violence would no longer be allowed.
The alacrity with which Brennan complied was unfortunate on many
levels. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate
view of Islam and jihad were purged. Brennan was complying with demands
from quarters that could hardly be considered authentically moderate.
This Obama policy of the U.S. government ensured that numerous
jihadists simply could not be identified as risks. The Obama
administration was bound, as a matter of policy, to ignore what in saner
times would be taken as warning signs. Now we can hope that Trump will
reverse all that. Indeed, it is our only hope of defeating this scourge.

A
Swedish court sentenced a Muslim migrant to only two months in jail
after being convicted of anally raping a 13-year-old girl. Now a second a
police officer has come forward, exposing how police have been told to
implement a “Code 291” procedure in order to cover-up information about
crimes committed by migrants.

That same cover-up agenda has made it's way to the U.S.

A
man arrested for sexually assaulting a Texas mother in front of her
child was not identified as a criminal illegal immigrant by local media,
despite the man being previously deported following a homicide
conviction. This is due to the fact Austin is embroiled in controversy
over attempts to be classified a Sanctuary City.

Finnish European Local to USA:

Refugee Chaos In My Town

Published on Feb 8, 2017

Finnish woman talks to Infowars about the militant asylum seeking population flooding into her small town.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The top lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential
campaign has joined a Soros-linked Super PAC to challenge Voter ID laws
across the country.

Marc Elias, a partner at the D.C.-based Perkins Coie law firm and the
head lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, has
joined the board of directors for Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC
heavily funded by globalist billionaire George Soros.Priorities USA Action will also absorb Every Citizen Counts, a nonprofit founded
by Priorities USA Action chief strategist Guy Cecil dedicated to
mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters, as it shifts its
efforts to challenging state Voter ID laws.

Led by Elias in his capacity as a partner with the Perkins Coie law
firm, Every Citizen Counts spent $17 million on legal challenges to
voting laws in North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin during the
2016 general election. The lawsuits were financially supported by Soros as well.
Priorities has also indicated
their intent to build a database “that’s intended to serve as a
one-stop inventory of restrictive voting measures which will be shared
with other progressive organizations.”
“We need to take a clear and aggressive stand that we’re going to do everything we can,” said Cecil.Priorities USA Action received nearly $157 million in contributions during the 2016 campaign, including three contributions totaling $9.5 million from George Soros; his son, Alexander, donated $1 million as well.
“Looking purely at his record of achievements in the 2016 cycle, this is not the best ‘get’ for Priorities USA,” said
Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
“He took millions of Soros dollars to tilt at voter ID and early voting
reform windmills in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina and
largely failed across the board.”
“He didn’t even shift public opinion.”
Soros’s
support for legal challenges to laws making it more difficult to commit
voter fraud are unsurprising given his stated goal of enlarging the
electorate by 10 million people by 2018.
A 220-page guide detailing the plan from a 2014 meeting of the Open Society Foundation was among more than 2,500 documents released by DC Leaks in August, 2016.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Those opposing vigorous and truthful
examination of voter fraud in the United States are advancing a
narrative asserting there is “no proof of voter fraud” in recent years.This past weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said on CNN’s “State of the Nation” program that he does not want to spend federal funds to investigate
President Trump’s claims of massive voter fraud in the 2016
presidential election because “there’s no evidence that [election fraud]
occurred in such a significant number that it could have changed the
presidential election.”While McConnell may be right, there is
evidence that would suggest voter fraud prevented Trump from winning the
popular vote, as well as the electoral vote.

Democratic Party operatives and their supporters in the Democratic
Party-sympathetic main stream media originally crafted and advanced this
meme in a transparent effort to ward off all responsible efforts to
enact the type of Voter ID laws that would largely rule out or
dramatically reduce the possibility of systematic Democratic Party voter
fraud.
Today, while no American can board an airplane today
without showing TSA employees a valid government-issued ID, the far-left
screams “voter suppression” and brings lawyers affiliated with the
Democratic Party to court to litigate every time efforts are made to
pass voter ID laws.A truthful examination provides ample evidence
President Trump is right in asserting Democratic Party fraud accounts
for between 3 to 5 million illegal votes to be cast, enough to cost him
the popular vote.In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton with
65,853,625 votes won the popular vote by some three million over Donald
Trump, who got 62,985,105 votes. The three million vote margin needed
to have swung the popular vote victory to Trump could have been obtained
had Democratic Party fraud amounted to only 2.5 percent of the total
votes cast.
While the Washington Post, in an article
published on Dec. 1, 2016, claimed that there were just four documented
cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election, the newspaper
restricted its “proof” to only those cases in which someone was caught
and faced possible criminal prosecution after being caught voting twice,
voting illegally as a non-citizen or a criminal felon or voting for
someone already deceased.
The available voter fraud evidence
suggests voter fraud in precincts controlled by the Democrats around the
country could easily top 2.5 percent of the total votes cast, provided
we do not restrict, as the Washington Post did, the “evidence of voter
fraud” to cases where fraudulent voters are caught.
The issue of
voter fraud, properly stated, involves the type of systematic Democratic
Party fraud that eludes detection precisely because Democratic Party
politicians and election officials take active steps to encourage
illegal voting that they have no intention of reporting, investigating
or prosecuting.
Truthfully, we need look no further than the 2016
Michigan recount demanded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein find clear
evidence of systematic Democratic Party voting fraud.2016 Michigan recount finds voter fraud in Detroit
In
the Michigan recount, instead of swinging the election to Clinton, the
recount found evidence of massive voter fraud in Wayne County, pointing
to Democratic Party voter fraud in Detroit, where Michigan’s largest
city in Michigan’s largest county had voted overwhelmingly for Clinton,
as noted by Roger Stone in his recent book, Making of the President 2016, on pages 296-298.
Stone
reported voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit
precincts registered more votes that the number of people recorded
having voted.
Overall, state records showed 10.6 percent of the
precincts in the state’s 22 counties could not be recounted because
Michigan state law bars recounts for unbroken precincts or precincts
submitting ballot boxes with broken seals.
The Detroit news reported the problems were the worst in Detroit
where officials could not recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60
percent of the total, with two-thirds of these precincts having too many
votes.
The newspaper further noted Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly
prevailed in Democratic-controlled Detroit, while Republican
President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by only 10,704 votes, or by
47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
The voting fraud found in Detroit as
a result of the 2016 Michigan recount suggests recounts in the
Democratic-controlled precincts in other rust-belt cities, including,
Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, as well Newark, New
Jersey, bear rigorous recount investigations to see if similar patterns
of Democratic Party voting fraud can be validated.
A study
published by the Pew Center on the States in February 2012, entitled
“Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter
Registration System Needs an Upgraded,” documented that approximately
24 million – one of every eight – voter registrations in the United
States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate, with more
than 1.8 million deceased individuals listed as voters, and
approximately 2.75 million people with registrations in more than one
state.”
While the Pew Center on the States does not prove that
voter fraud caused someone to vote for all the deceased on voter
registration rolls, or that a large proportion of those registered in
more than one state voted in more than one state, the 2016 presidential
election provides evidence Democrats in various states have exploited
registration problems that could be solved with a Voter ID system at the
center of rigorous enforcement of voting laws throughout the United
States.
The lack of rigor in U.S. voting registration rolls is
unlikely to be rectified as long as the Democratic Party resists every
and all efforts to enact for voting the type of Voter ID laws that the
TSA demands for those seeking to board commercial aircraft in the United
States.Non-citizens and felons vote
In 2016, an
investigation in Virginia by the public Interest Legal Foundation, PILF,
and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance, VVA, showed that in a small sample
of the eight Virginia counties responding to the investigators’ public inspection requests, 1046 illegal aliens were found registered to vote.
“The
problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data
regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia
localities,” the Virginia investigators concluded. “Even in this small
sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien
registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before
they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.”
In
2016, Virginia’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe, a long-time
Clinton associate, cleared 13,000 Virginia felons to vote in the
presidential election, after the State’s Supreme Court struck down his
earlier “sweeping order” automatically restoring many felons’ voting
rights in a move that would have provided clearance for some 206,000
Virginia felons to vote, despite their criminal records as murders,
rapists, sex offenders, kidnappers, child abusers, arsonists, drug
traffickers, and other dangerous criminals, as noted by Breitbart in an article published on Aug. 22, 1016.
In
April 2015, McAuliffe vetoed House Bill 1315, a state law that would
have required jury commissioners to retain individuals not qualified to
serve as jurors for reasons that would also disqualify them from voting,
including finding out that a prospective juror was not a citizen of the
United States.
In August 2011, the Fairfax County Electoral Board
notified the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
Virginia in Alexandria, as well as the Public Integrity Section of the
Criminal Division of the Justice Department in Washington, of possible
voter fraud by non-citizens.
An Electoral Board study conducted in
conjunction with the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles discovered
that 278 registered voters, when they got their drivers licenses, admitted they were not U.S. citizens. Almost half of them, 117, were subsequently found to have registered to vote and to have voted in Virginia.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation studied a case where 86 non-citizens registered to vote in Philadelphia
since 2013, with almost half (46) known to have voted in at least one
recent election, asked for their names to be removed from voter
registrations.
“This is just the tip of iceberg,” concluded Joseph
Vanderhulst, an attorney with the foundation. “Who knows how may are on
and don’t ask to be taken off.” Research indicated Philadelphia makes
no effort to proactively remove from voter registration rolls
non-citizens or incarcerated felons that are ineligible to vote under
Pennsylvania law.
“Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter
registrations illegal absentee ballots, shady recounts or old-fashioned
ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States,
although it is probably spreading because of the ever-so-tight divisions
that have polarized the country and created so many close elections
lately,” concluded journalist John Fund in his 2004 book entitled
“Stealing Elections.”Project Veritas documents Democratic Party voter fraud
In
my 2012 book examining the 2012 presidential elections entitled “What
Went Wrong?” I found a series of undercover voters taken by James
O’Keefe and his Project Veritas were particularly damaging to Democrats
claiming there is no proof of voter fraud.

O’Keefe’s videos showed Democratic Party campaign workers and
volunteers being willing to advise voters how to commit voter fraud,
including how to register and vote in more than one state. The videos
also demonstrate how difficult it is to get your name removed
from the voter registration rolls after you have moved, and how easy it
is to get an absentee ballot to vote in a second state, even if the
second state is registered in a different name than the person’s current
legal name.
One video demonstrated states like North Carolina
that do not require voter ID how easy it was for illegal immigrants
non-citizens to vote, or for persons to vote after showing up at a
voting poll after stealing the identity of registered voters who are
dead. Also exposed by O’Keefe’s undercover video cameras were students
voting for Obama in the state where they were attending college, as well
as voting by absentee ballot in their home state.

A clear point of O’Keefe’s videos is that early voting statutes provide
ample time to explore and implement voter fraud statutes. O’Keefe
exposed judges and state voting officials who imposed lax voter
registration processes because the favored the type of “open election”
procedures favored by Democrats who charge voter ID laws are racist
by-nature, supported and enacted by Republicans who want to suppress the
votes of African-Americans and Hispanics.

O’Keefe’s videos caught salaried employees of the DNC working for the
Obama campaign in Organizing for America offices advising undercover
Project Veritas reporters on how to vote twice, including in more than
one state – clearly demonstrating the Democratic Party and the Obama
campaign were engaging in voter fraud in 2012.

Infowars
reporter Millie Weaver discusses how the Antifa reign of terror has
spread from not only trying to shut down free speech at conservative
speaking events, as we saw at UC Berkeley in California, but they're now
threatening a woman reporter and her child on Twitter.

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Published on Feb 7, 2017

MSNBC
reporter Katy Tur is concerned that President Trump may start having
reporters assassinated for saying negative things about him. This is
all a coordinated strategy of the liberal media to paint Trump as a
dangerous dictator in order to encourage the radical Leftists to keep up
their protests and riots.

Infowars
Reporter Millie Weaver covers the latest in child trafficking busts
which, once again, point towards the nefarious operations of the Clinton
Foundation in Haiti. Just this weekend, and a little over one day prior
to a major child trafficking bust in Haiti, the Clinton Foundation
announced that it would be cutting operations in Haiti. This followed
soon after the announcement that Federal Prosecutors are seeking child
porn charges against disgraced Democratic Representative Anthony Wiener,
the ex-husband of Clinton's former chief of staff and vice chairwoman
for the Hillary Clinton Campaign, Huma Abedin. Less than a week ago, 474
arrests were made in a Statewide Human Trafficking bust in California
which rescued 28 children and 27 adults that were victims of sexual
exploitation.

Human Trafficking Modern Day Slavery ExposedPublished on Feb 7, 2017
Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver speaks with Anti-Human Trafficking advocate Amanda Seymour (http://amandajseymour.com/) about how to spot trafficked individuals and how the Super Bowl exacerbates the problem of Human Trafficking.

SEE: http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/index.php/worship/evensong (contemplative). EXCERPT: "St. John’s Contemplative Evensong Service encourages us
to also be prayerful without words. The chanted prayers and psalms, as
well as the hymns and sacramentals, help prepare us for longer periods
of silence where one might simply rest in the presence of God."

"Compline is a 1500-year-old tradition that developed in the early
monastic communities. It is the final office of the day in the Christian
tradition of canonical hours.

The English word “Compline” is derived from the Latin word
“completorium” meaning completion, since Compline completes the liturgy
of the day. As is characteristic of monastic offices. The sanctuary is dark and quiet; there are candles, but no cell phones,
no responses to have to follow, no preaching. It’s short: just 30-35
minutes. People are free to sit on the floor, sit up around the altar,
or even lie down and allow the music to wash over them."

Congregation’s Rapid Response Network: "This network would be activated as significant bills are introduced that relate to guns."

SEE THIS BLOG'S "CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER" & "MYSTICISM" CATEGORIES FOR EXTENSIVE POSTS ABOUT THESE APOSTATE PRACTICES.___________________________________________________

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Kelleigh Nelson
February 8, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

Our
young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known.
Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion? One of the most
absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or
care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal
importance of life inside and outside of the womb. The gravity in a baby’s
eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful
things in the world. —G. K. Chesterton

I am
overjoyed that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President, and I’m thrilled
with 95% of his nominees. Nevertheless, unlike the sycophants who supported
Obama and Hillary, when I am in doubt, I’m going to let my readers
know about it.

God
Said, CHOOSE LIFE

The
Lord said in Deuteronomy
to Choose Life! When those of us who hate Roe v. Wade think of the suffering
of millions of little babies in their mothers’ wombs when abortion
is chosen, we cry out for it to come to a screeching halt. We know too
what happens to those little murdered bodies. It is why our 45th President
has promised to put pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. We can thank
God Hillary Clinton is not nominating a justice.

My first
choice would have been Judge Charles Canady from Florida. While he was
in Congress, Canady was credited for coining the term "partial-birth
abortion" while developing the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 1995. He has proven to be stellar on pro-life
issues.

Neil
Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia

When
introducing Neil Gorsuch, our President said, “I took the task of
this nomination very seriously. I have selected an individual whose qualities
define, really, and I mean closely, define what we’re looking for.
Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous
discipline and has earned bipartisan support.” He added that Gorsuch’s
resume was as good as he’s ever seen.

As he
searched for a nominee to ultimately take Scalia's empty seat, Trump said
he spoke "regularly" with Scalia's wife, Maureen McCarthy Scalia,
according to Kellyanne Conway. Mrs. Scalia has been a rock throughout
this entire process," Conway said. "She has been somebody who
the President has talked to regularly throughout this process and he has
very much enjoyed his time with her in person and over the phone."

Gorsuch
is better than half of those on the list who really don’t see much
that can be done in stopping abortion. He does have sterling credentials,
and in theory believes in the Constitution. However, no one can truly
say whether or not he’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is ultimately
the definition of pro-life.

Gorsuch
and Scalia were friends, and obviously had enjoyed time together in Colorado
as the signed photo suggests.

The
insignia reads, “To Neil Gorsuch, Fond memories of a day on the
Colorado. With warm regards, Antonin Scalia.

After
President Trump’s announcement of Neil Gorsuch as his nominee, Gorsuch
met Mrs. Scalia and chatted amiably with her and her son, Fr. Paul Scalia.

Gorsuch
and Hobby Lobby

Many
believe Gorsuch is pro-life because he ruled for the Christian Hobby Lobby
stores against Obamacare’s demand (via Secretary
Sebelius) that this Christian for-profit organization provide all
contraceptive funding in their insurance. The left would have you think
that Hobby Lobby was against all contraception for women, which is untrue.
The reality is that the FDA approved 18 forms of female contraception,
and Hobby Lobby took offense to only the ones that killed an already fertilized
egg, Plan B "morning-after pill," Ella "morning-after pill,"
and two hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs). They didn’t
object to most birth control pills, sponges, condoms and even sterilization.

The
key issue on appeal in the 10th was whether or not a “for-profit
corporation” may be considered a "person exercising religion"
under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, which came into play in the decision
for Hobby Lobby from the lower court. The case was about religious
freedom, not about abortion per se. Gorsuch sided with the Little Sisters
of the Poor in a similar religious freedom case involving Obamacare.

In the
Supreme Court decision, Justice Alito wrote that, "The owners of
the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to
their religious beliefs the contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."

According
to ABC News, Gorsuch “is a defender of the ‘Free Exercise
Clause,’ which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As such,
he has also championed the rights of religious groups to display their
religion in public places. And that’s a big Amen.

Gorsuch
and Assisted Suicide

Gorsuch
disagreed with Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. Posner has written in favor of permitting physician-assisted
suicide, arguing that the government should not interfere with a person's
decision to take his or her own life, especially in cases where the patient
is terminally ill.

Gorsuch
rejected that view, writing it would "tend toward, if not require,
the legalization not only of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but of any
act of consensual homicide." Posner's position, he writes, would
allow "sadomasochist killings" and "mass suicide pacts,"
as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales and the "sale of
one's own life."

Gorsuch
concludes his book by suggesting that the law could allow for terminally
ill patients to refuse treatments that would extend their lives, while
stopping short of permitting intentional killing.

In his
book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2006), Gorsuch
praised the pro-abortion ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade as follows:
“The plurality in Casey expressly sought to provide a firmer basis
for the abortion right and to shore up the reasoning behind Roe’s
result.” (p. 79) This is extremely troubling, as no one who is pro-life
would ever assert that there is a “firmer basis” and better
“reasoning” that can support the horrifically unjust result
of abortion-on-demand.

Citing
the Judge’s book as proof that he is pro-life is not valid inasmuch
as pro-abortion supreme court judges have ruled against physician assisted
suicide in the past.

Gorsuch
and Stare Decisis

Gorsuch
also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare
decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather
than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires
us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second
Amendment rights of a man before his court. United
States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch,
J. concurring).

What
is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,”
and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an
issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued.
Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not
universally true. See, e.g. Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. The
doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis
refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical
stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently,
stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.

Although
courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare
decisis is not an “inexorable
command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the
doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable.
In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to
overrule
precedent; however, any decision
to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell
University Law School)

Neil
Gorsuch was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed
in the 2008 CFR Annual Report Membership Roster. He is not listed in the
2017 Annual Report, but is listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by
President George W. Bush. (See
part 8)

Aside
from his stint at Harvard Law, can we conjecture that his term membership
in the CFR might have influenced him with the One-World-Socialist-Police-State-under-the-United-Nations
goals of the CFR? Here is a short
tutorial on the CFR. You can also purchase
a booklet about the CFR.

Because
of his membership, will he will be a shoe-in for the post, as he was in
2006? Other CFR Members of the Court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer.

The
only way you can find out about CFR Membership rosters is to obtain the
CFR Annual Reports through purchase from Amazon for a nominal fee. (Hat
tip to Sue.)

Gorsuch’s
Pro-Abortion Church

Neil
Gorsuch and his wife attend the apostate St.
John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, that has a woman
rector, Rev. Susan Springer, who considers homosexuality as acceptable,
and who believes that women have the right to kill their unborn babies.
Springer also promotes climate control and gun control. [Link]

Homosexuals
have had union blessing ceremonies in the church. Here
is an article written by Rev. Susan Springer in 2010 supporting homosexuals
and their behavior.

In 1994,
as the anti-abortion movement mobilized to restrict reproductive freedom
of American women, the Episcopal Church added this resolve:

“The
Episcopal Church expresses its unequivocal opposition to any legislative,
executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national
governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed
decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the
access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.”

Gorsuch’s
membership
in an Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, whose female senior pastor
attended the Women’s March in Colorado, and has been associated
with other liberal causes, gives great pause to most pro-life conservatives.

Lobbyist
Influence

The
influence, primarily by the pro-abortion Federalist
Society and Heritage Foundation lobbyists, over the Supreme Court
decision by our President was unprecedented. Why did Trump lock himself
into only 21 names given by these organizations?

According
to media accounts Trump considered only candidates whom the Federalist
Society recommended, and no others. Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles
Canady is pro-life and more qualified than Gorsuch, but apparently, Trump
never even interviewed Canady. Other prominent pro-life candidates, both
on and off the list, who Trump cited during his campaign, were also not
seriously considered.

If this
were merely the first time that a Supreme Court nominee was supposedly
pro-life, but was actually pro-choice, then perhaps a “wait and
see” approach might be reasonable. However, unborn children have
been sacrificed time and time again by this deception. President Ronald
Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, who was supposed to be pro-life
but wasn’t, and then likewise for Anthony Kennedy. The first President
Bush appointed David Souter, who was also supposed to be pro-life, but
became stridently pro-abortion instead.

Where
will Gorsuch come down on in the issue of whether men, who claim to be
women, may enter women’s public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms.
His opinion would affect children in public school facilities. Will he
even be questioned on this issue by senators during his hearing proceedings?

Conclusion

Unfortunately
for us, Gorsuch’s views on abortion are not well defined. In his
book, he wrote, “In Roe, the Court explained that, had it found
the fetus to be a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional
basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over
the child’s life.”

For
the sake of the unborn babies in America, I pray that Gorsuch truly is
pro-life.

Like
Joe Friday of Dragnet, I’m just giving you the facts, the decision
is yours._________________________________________________________

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Representatives from seven faiths discussed same-sex marriage on Nov.
2 as part of the Center for Women and Gender lecture series at Utah
State University. Titled, ““Gays and Marriage: Religious Perspectives,”
the panel discussion was open to students, faculty and members of the
general community.Panel members included the Rev. Susan Springer of St. John’s
Episcopal Church; Michael Sowder, associate professor of English and a
practicing Buddhist; Dr. Vikram Garg, gastroenterologist and internist
who practices the Hindu tradition; Harrison Kleiner, adjunct assistant
professor of philosophy and Roman Catholic; William Duncan, director of
the Marriage Law Foundation and member of the Church pf Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints; Eldon Peterson, pastor of the Cache Valley Bible
fellowship; and Rabbi Ilana Schwartzman of the congregation Kol Ami in
Salt Lake City.
“We realize we don’t have all possible religions represented and many
will argue that we should have had an atheist on the panel,” said
director for the Center for Women and Gender Ann Austin. “But this panel
is an important step in understanding the diverse points of view around
this very sensitive topic.”
The panel was organized by Philip Barlow, USU’s Arrington Chair of
Mormon History and Culture, and Camille O’Dell, director of the School
Counseling program in USU’s Department of Psychology.Rev. Springer said all voices are important to such a discussion and, as a society, it is necessary that they are made public.“Currently, the Episcopal Diocese of Utah permits the blessing of
same gender unions, but not every Episcopal diocese in this country
permits them,” Springer said. “Unlike, for example, the Roman Catholic
and LDS churches, Episcopalians have no central figure or group that is
our doctrinal authority.”“We endeavor to be a safe place and to be welcoming,” Springer said.
“We’re not perfect, we don’t always succeed, but that’s our goal.”
Duncan said the controversy over the Proposition 8 measure in
California – which was overturned by a San Francisco judge –
demonstrates that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberties.
Duncan’s group was formed a year after a Massachusetts Court decision
which declared banning gay marriage as unconstitutional with a mission
of “reaffirming the legal definition of marriage as the union of a
husband and wife.”
“Increasingly, groups are seeking to harness religion along with
other social institutions, such as family and church, to accomplish
their aims of cultural reconstruction,” Duncan said.
Duncan said that many saw opponents to interracial marriage in the ’60s as bigots.
“Just because the LDS Church does not believe in same-sex marriage does not mean Latter-day Saints are prejudiced,” he said.
Peterson said Christians do not condone same-sex marriage and likened
the debate to “what color the grass is … there’s only one definition of
same-sex marriage.” He said he wishes gays would “take responsibility”
for their orientation and not “claim to be a victim.”
Sowder said that Buddhism has no central religious authority but
largely welcomes gays as it would welcome anybody. He quoted the Dalai
Lama, who said that homosexuality is considered “sexual misconduct,” but
that the Tibetan stance of gay marriage is “subject to change.”
“Compassion is the ultimate ideal in Buddhism,” Sowder said. “Why is
sexuality such a highly charged issue in religion? I think that’s why we
have this focus on it, it freaks us out.”
Kleiner said Catholics believe “marriage was founded for man.”
“We are most complete as organisms when we join with opposite flesh.”
He said he does not believe gay marriage is a choice: “You can’t choose how you feel but you can choose how you act.”
Garg said that Hinduism, currently, has no one leader who would
stand up for gay marriage, though there is no reference to it in
scripture.
“Love, in Hinduism, means a devotion between two people, whether it
is romantic or platonic,” Garg said. “There’s really no information in
religious scriptures about marriage and same sex.”
He said for some it is a challenge to accept gay marriage since males play a dominant role in a heterosexual marriage.
Schwartzman said the Torah “is divinely inspired, not divinely
written,” so more Jewish people are becoming accepting of same-sex
marriage and that even the more conservative members are “teetering” on
whether or not to fully embrace the concept of same-sex marriage.Springer ended the panel saying she felt discussions such as this panel are necessary to moving forward.__________________________________________________

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

St. John’s Episcopal Church is led by a pastor who proudly
attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the
President’s inauguration
Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples
Another member of the clergy is outspoken about the need for gun control
The church’s Rev. Ted Howard also signed a letter slamming the
‘disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam as Trump floated a ban on
Muslim immigrants
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental
initiatives and added solar panels to the roof because of ‘climate
crisis’
If Gorsuch is confirmed, he will renew the Supreme Court’s Christian majority and join as the only non-Catholic member

By Ruth Styles In Boulder, ColoradoDailyMail.com
6 February 2017
He has been described as ‘the heir to Scalia’ and is a religious
conservative whose appointment to the Supreme Court was greeted with
jubilation on the pro-gun, anti-abortion Right.But DailyMail.com can reveal that Neil Gorsuch’s own church, in
Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking – and is led by a
pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the
day after the President’s inauguration.
Another member of the clergy at St. John’s Episcopal Church is
outspoken about the need for gun control, and helped organize opposition
to a gun shop giveaway of high-capacity magazines in the run-up to a
2013 law that banned them from the state of Colorado.
In December 2015, shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist attack,
Rev. Ted Howard, 74, also put his name to a public letter slamming the
‘criticism and disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam – just as
President Trump was floating a total ban on Muslim immigrants.And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed
Gorsuch’s appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said
she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.The church, which trumpets its ‘inclusive’ ethos on its website, also
operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a
sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for
those in need of help.
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of
environmental initiatives – even adding solar panels to the roof in
January last year saying it was because of the ‘climate crisis’.Gorsuch, 49, moved to Colorado with his British wife Louise and
daughters Emma, 18, and Belinda, 16, a decade ago after being appointed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President
George W. Bush.The judge, who grew up in Denver but relocated to Washington DC as a
teenager, has been a member of the congregation ever since and regularly
volunteers as an usher.Gorsuch was brought up as a Catholic by his mother Ann, and attended
an elite all boys Catholic school in Washington D.C. run by the Jesuit
order.The Rest…HERE___________________________________________________

Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

WASHINGTON — Discussion is stirring over
how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such
as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law
clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his “gay
marriage,” but reports also note that Gorsuch outlined over a decade ago
that he does not believe the courts are the place to effect social
change.

Joshua Goodbaum served as a clerk for Gorsuch in 2009, and now works as an attorney. He told Reuters on Friday that on the week of his 2014 “wedding” with his partner, Gorsuch expressed his support.“He said, ‘This is a wonderful thing. You’ll see how your relationship grows,'” Goodbaum recalled.“I have never felt the least whiff from him of homophobia or intolerance toward gay people,” he added.As previously reported,
Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in
Boulder, Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its
website and is led by female minister Susan Springer. All of its deacons
are also female.
In 2013, Springer expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”“I don’t think anybody in my faith tradition is out to destroy marriage between a man and a woman,” she told
the Daily Camera. “I think we are out to find a way to offer the same
blessing and the same sense of inclusion to same-sex couples. And I
think we stand as prophetic witness, that same-sex couples ought to
enjoy the same legal benefits, if you will, as heterosexual couples."

However, in 2005, Gorsuch penned an article
for the National Review, where he opined that issues such as same-sex
nuptials and others should be battled in the ballot box rather than in
the courts.
He pointed to the writings of Washington Post
columnist David von Drehle, who remarked that pushing agendas through
the court system damages progressive purposes. Gorsuch said that
liberals would do well to heed those sentiments.
“von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become
addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than
elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting
their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide
to the use of vouchers for private-school education,” he wrote.
“Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching
to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing
to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the
sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in
all eleven states where it was on the ballot,” Gorsuch noted.He reiterated that letting the American people sort out
matters in elections is the best way to solve social arguments rather
than placing issues in the hands of judges.
“During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot
box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social
reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect—instituting
profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today,”
Gorsuch wrote. “It would be a very good thing for all involved—the
country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself—if liberals take a
page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era,
kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their
New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.”
But Gorsusch has weighed in on social issues at times. As previously reported,
Gorsuch is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically
valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
Gorsuch is also known for ruling in favor of the popular
craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over
its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not
to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as
the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act in his ruling.
“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious
complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious
teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those
only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.
“Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the
underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”
Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.
Gorsuch is stated as being much like the late Antonin Scalia
in that he is an originalist, that is, he seeks to interpret the
Constitution in the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia,
however, noted during his tenure that he opposes both the complete
abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He said that
the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as he believes
the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down
a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002
Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court
to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to
prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to
prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that
the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that
the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human
being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I
think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes
interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled
to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means
walking-around persons.”The Trump administration, while identifying as pro-life with exceptions, has also expressed its support for the homosexual agenda. As previously reported, during his RNC acceptance speech in July, Trump told those gathered that he would work to protect homosexuals if elected.
“As president, I will do everything in my power to protect
LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign
ideology,” he declared, being met with applause.
“And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said in response.Trump had also declared at a fundraiser in June that he is the best candidate for the “gay community.”
“So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!” he said.In February, he replied in the affirmative when asked by a lesbian reporter if the nation can expect “more forward motion” on homosexual issues if elected president.

PAYPAL.ME-SUPPORT THIS BLOG

INFOWARS: THE FOURTH ESTATE, NOT STAR WARS

Adolf Hitler

ACTS 5:29

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

THOMAS JEFFERSON 1800

"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

GOD ABOVE GOVERNMENT

Bible Obedience; Civil Disobedience

DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer: We are not responsible for all views posted on this website. Authors of articles, videos and/or selected texts are solely responsible for the content of their material. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Those sharing stories or testimonies are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of www.ratherexposethem.blogspot.com and/or its author.Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Total Pageviews

Content in full or in part may be copyrighted.. Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.